Sub menu

Damaging property is an acceptable way to behave?

We have all probably heard that phrase ‘taking your anger out on the wrong person’ or had someone tell us ‘don’t take your anger out on me’. Well it seems like not all of us have as riots broke out in Washington DC on the day of Donald Trump’s inauguration as 45th President of the United States. While it came as no surprise that many people would protest and while
it is welcome that most people exercised their right to protest peacefully, not all did. Public bins thrown on the floor, businesses windows smashed and a Washington Examiner reporter had their phone thrown on the pavement. It led to over 200 arrests and many will no doubt face be charged and face court.

There are many things unsettling about these riots. Many of these rioters no doubt are worried about what the incoming Trump administration may do due to Trump’s comments on the campaign trail. They worry about Muslims, illegal Mexican immigrants and women. They probably worry about their safety and status in America. If that is the case when why does this
safety not extend to the members of the public who may have been having a coffee in the Starbucks who’s windows got smashed? Why does this concern for safety not extend towards those who were eating in the nearby McDonald’s?

One has to question if concern for others was the real reason why they came out that day. These rioters also seem to have absolutely know respect for the concept of property rights and there actions displayed that. Individuals, have a right to be secures in their persons and possessions, something which these rioters rightly say to Trump about Muslims and women. So why do they not extend this thought process to the owners of Starbucks, McDonald’s (or specifically the owners of the buildings)? It seems that not all people are right to be secure in their persons and possessions particularly if anti Trump rioters are not happy with him becoming the US President.

But there is one thing in particular that these people are doing that they might want to think about: giving peaceful anti-Trump demonstrators a bad name. One of the biggest problems with protests (and one of the major reasons that I tend to stay away from them) is because there is always a bad bunch that want to cause trouble.”Riots can attention while protests send a message.”says Phillip Wegmann who is comment writer for the Washington Examiner. And how right he is. The rioters of the group will end up getting most of the media coverage just like how the violent rioters during the tuition fee protests a few years ago got most of the media coverage. What that then does is demonise all those peaceful protesters who do not want violence or to be associated with it. It could also lead to a crackdown on the right to protest, something which Trump supporters as a well as protesters wouldn’t want. It is quite interesting that those rioters, determined that they have the best interests of various groups at heart, could be inadvertently making it harder for those people to have a voice in the future.

So often people who protest violently believe that their behaviour is right. They believe that the end justifies the means. They believe that because they have a grievance or are unhappy with a particular outcome that they can damage property, cause destruction and infringe of the property rights of local business owners. Well it’s not right and in future I hope business owners feel more compelled to defend their property and the lives and liberties of the people within their property more rigorously (American business owners have the right to bear arms the last time I checked)

Protesting is a right that all people in free societies deserve and it should always be upheld but damaging property both private and public and throwing journalists phones on the ground is not on. It does nothing for the cause or the people the cause is intended to help. And it discredits people protesters and their reputations.

Share this:

Related

Post navigation

5 comments for “Damaging property is an acceptable way to behave?”

Paul Marks

Jan 24, 2017 at 11:18 pm

The collectivists do not believe in private property rights – they say this openly. But when people act on their words (by smashing windows, burning cars, attacking “reactionary” people and so on) the collectivist “intellectuals” pretend that what is happening is nothing to do with them.

Paul Marks

Jan 24, 2017 at 11:21 pm

As for President Trump.

I expected the left to riot when the Federal Reserve Credit Bubble economy collapsed – falsely blaming the collapse on Donald Trump.

But that has not happened yet – the left are just rioting because they like to riot. They like to smash and burn things – and to smash people. It really is that brutally simple.

The actions of the “anarchist” group in Washington were so ridiculous it is hard not to assume that they were done by agent provocateurs. I cannot imagine any discernable benefit they group would have gotten from smashing up cars and breaking windows. The only thing that they achieved was to bolster support for president Trump.

A few of my friends on social media who identify as antifascists were applauding the assault on the white nationalist Richard Spencer. Because nothing says that you are against intolerance more that punching people you don’t like in the face…..

I believe there is a great amount of truth in what Paul says; that some people like to protest because they find it cathartic rather than having any kind of aim or objective. The same logic applies to the women’s march that day after the inauguration. No real purpose other than a pleasant Sunday out with your fellow comrades.

Alf Rosenberg

Jan 25, 2017 at 3:40 pm

This is fascinating stuff.

We have Reiss Ferlance completely ignoring the extremely well publicised violence that took place Thursday/Friday in an article written over the weekend and published on Tuesday.

We have Paul Marks telling us that leftist intellectuals aren’t openly on board with political violence.

And we have Jordan Lee telling us that antifa are good boys who wouldn’t hurt a fly.

Extraordinary!

Is this meant to be propaganda? I ask because it seems impossible to be this ignorant.

And here we have a chap openly identifying with the Commissar for Supervision of Intellectual and Ideological Education of the Nazi Party checking we are sufficiently up to date and sympathetic with his pet causes (and doing so repeatedly, though I have deleted the rest of it).

You are clearly a waste of time and will not waste mine or the audience’s time any longer. Go away.